4 Cited authorities
Labor Board v. Stowe Spinning Co.
336 U.S. 226 (1949) Cited 46 timesIn NLRB v. Stowe Spinning Co., 336 U.S. 226, 232-33, 69 S.Ct. 541, 544, 93 L.Ed. 638 (1949), the Court declined to enforce an order requiring an employer to make its meeting hall available to a union; the Board might legitimately bar discrimination against unions, the Court said, but could not require the employer to prefer unions over other potential users.
N.L.R.B. v. Kolmar Laboratories, Inc.
387 F.2d 833 (7th Cir. 1967) Cited 7 timesNo. 16307. December 19, 1967. Marcel Mallet-Prevost, N.L.R.B., Nancy M. Sherman, N.L.R.B., Washington, D.C., for petitioner. Egon W. Peck, Patrick Brigden, Milwaukee, Wis., for respondent. Before HASTINGS, Chief Judge, and KILEY and FAIRCHILD, Circuit Judges. HASTINGS, Chief Judge. The National Labor Relations Board petitions, pursuant to 29 U.S.C.A. § 160(e), for enforcement of its order that Respondent Kolmar Laboratories, Inc. cease and desist from committing certain violations of § 8(a)(1) of
Nat'l Labor Relations Bd. v. Orkin Exterminating Co. of Florida, Inc.
379 F.2d 972 (5th Cir. 1967) Cited 1 timesNo. 23503. July 6, 1967. Marcel Mallet-Prevost, Asst. Gen. Counsel, Glen M. Bendixsen, Atty., Arnold Ordman, Gen. Counsel, Dominick L. Manoli, Associate Gen. Counsel, Edith Nash, Atty., N.L.R.B., Washington, D.C., for petitioner. John Bacheller, Jr., Charles Kelso, Wilson, Branch, Barwick Wilcox, John W. Wilcox, Jr., Atlanta, Ga., for respondent. Before RIVES and DYER, Circuit Judges, and JOHNSON, District Judge. PER CURIAM: We find that there is substantial evidence on the record considered as a
Section 151 - Findings and declaration of policy
29 U.S.C. § 151 Cited 5,092 times 34 Legal AnalysesFinding that "protection by law of the right of employees to organize and bargain collectively safeguards commerce" and declaring a policy of "encouraging the practice and procedure of collective bargaining"